Sniffy said on January 29, 2005  

California suicide law is complicated. The attempt may well be considered a felony, in this case, but then again, it may not. Did he hold a life insurance policy? Were there outstanding leins against him? Could dependants materially benefit from his death?

Killing yourself in CA is a bad idea. If I were still there, and also wanted to die, I'd go do it in Nevada.

 Gideon said on January 29, 2005  

When I first read that California was planning to charge the man with a capital felony, my initial reaction was pretty much the same; that he did not possess the requisite intent to commit murder. Immediately I thought of manslaughter. But reading the post by CrimProf does raise the interesting issue of specific intent vs. general intent. Were the statute to refer to general intent, then it would be possible to proceed on murder, but as you rightly pointed out, the statute seems to indicate specific intent. Thinking about this more, I would be willing to go as far as criminal negligence. However California code sec. 192 states the following:

" "Gross negligence," as used in this section, shall not be construed as prohibiting or precluding a charge of murder under Section 188 upon facts exhibiting wantonness and a conscious disregard for life to support a finding of implied malice, or upon facts showing malice, consistent with the holding of the California Supreme Court in People v. Watson, 30 Cal. 3d 290."

It is the part about 'implied malice' that troubles me.

Sec. 192(b) speaks of involuntary manslaughter and defines it as
"Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. It is of three kinds:
(b)Involuntary-in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection. This subdivision shall not apply to acts committed in the driving of a vehicle."

Can this be construed as an act committed in the driving of a vehicle?

 Ken Lammers said on January 29, 2005  

The "implied malice" issue doesn't bother me as much in this case as it would in others. Hard to imply malice to others from a suicide attempt.

As to whether this can be construed as an act committed in the driving of a vehicle, I suspect that's a question which would require research into California case law. The problem is that the meaning of "driving" may have been warped under application in DUI cases.

 Gideon said on January 29, 2005  

As far as the definition of 'driving', I am inclined to agree with you - a review of CA law would be necessary. However, I think the theory behind implied malice is that you have wanton disregard for the result of your actions, knowing that they are likely to cause harm and/or death.

Implied intent and like statutes have always bothered me, generally speaking.

I wonder how many states still use malice in their statutes. I know CT doesn't have malice as an element.

 Anonymous said on January 30, 2005  

My understanding is that he was parked and stopped with the engine off when he was struck. If this is correct, he wasn't driving under California rules.

This particular mode of suicide shows depraved indifference to human life, IMO. I think he's looking at a mountain of second degree murders.

--JRM

 Mister DA said on January 31, 2005  

I'm with JRM, sounds like "depraved heart" second degree murder to me. Although you could make a "constructive intent" to derail argument. What else did he think would happen? I mean, in addition to being squashed like a bug? But I think Calif is one of those states that expressly defines murder by statute, so is the classic wilful and wanton disregrad of the likely consequences of his act to be death or serious bodily injury mens rea available to prosecurors?

 marissa said on September 03, 2005  

I really like your conversation on life insurance. I have a life insurance secrets blog if you wanna come on over and check my stuff out.